Why not? Living systems exist in a world that follows natural laws. Within that system there is nothing preventing the development of new information following the those rules. Random changes to DNA, mutations, happen. We have taken advantage of some of these for over 10,000 years in growing crops and domesticating animals. Most mutations are neutral or deleterious, but some are beneficial. Lactase persistence in humans, the ice nucleating glycoprotein of nototheniod fish, sickle cell ( mixed bag, but beneficial in the right conditions), resistance to pesticides and antibiotics and others are all mutations that have new information and benefit the organisms they are found in.
Living things are mutable. The evidence all supports that given time (scale) these changes accumulate and result in a diversity of new forms.
Lake Victoria is the worlds largest tropical lake. According to work done in the 1980's using core samples of the lake bottom, the lake was grassland only about 15,000 years ago. Just a creek running through a field. It is now the second largest freshwater lake on earth, supporting over 500 species of cichlid fish not found anywhere else on earth. In 15,000 years, one or a few ancestor species of cichlid adapted and diversified into the new niches offered by the formation of the lake into over 500 species. A new suite of niches became available to a small, mutable population of fish that very rapidly evolved into new species proliferating throughout the lake. The theory of evolution explains this example.
How is it a paradox?
Multiverses, M Theory, String theory, steady state?[/QUOTE]I'm not a physicist and I'm not familiar with all these things you mention here, but as I understand it, they are based on existing laws and knowledge and not outside them. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong.